The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Oh yeah, the typical wing-nut argument: "Prices are too high because of the YOON-YUN 'abusing' their rights by using their (collectively bargained) sick days! It's all the YOON-YUN's fault!!!"

Nevermind the fact that the CEO takes home 11 million per year.

Speaking of wing-nut arguments.... "waaah, the CEO makes so much money. It's so unfair to those poor, downtrodden unskilled labourers. wah wah wah."

Never mind that if those 138,000 employees abuse sick days once per year on average, the cost passed onto consumers will far exceed the CEO's salary.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If you are looking for a single answer there isn't one, we do have a well-payed public service and that is something that we need in order to a) attract qualified people to the positions and b) ensure that government employees have a certain standard of living.

People I know who work for the AB government or the schools all voted for Alison last time. They might be discontent with her or PC right now. But when voting time comes, they'll vote with their wallets and vote PC.

There's no way WR could win the election if they don't at least win 40% of the seats in Edmonton.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

People I know who work for the AB government or the schools all voted for Alison last time. They might be discontent with her or PC right now. But when voting time come, they'll vote with their wallet and vote PC.

There's no way WR could win the election if they don't at least win 40% of the seats in Edmonton.

It's not only public sector employees who do that. I can guarantee you that if one party was going to make my business more efficient and in the end make me more money, I would vote for them. That's just human nature.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Speaking of wing-nut arguments.... "waaah, the CEO makes so much money. It's so unfair to those poor, downtrodden unskilled labourers. wah wah wah."

Never mind that if those 138,000 employees abuse sick days once per year on average, the cost passed onto consumers will far exceed the CEO's salary.

Well that is a lot of people to compare to one persons salary. I wonder how much a CEO's sick day would cost?

I've often wondered what Starbucks is doing right. I've never seen or dealt with a moody or grumpy employee there and I go for coffee a lot. I don't imagine they get paid terribly well, probably get a few sick days a year but why do they seem to be happier and more effective at work (generally) than someone at Safeway, 7-11 or McDonalds? It seems to me that they've somehow managed to strike a balance of giving employees a reason to be motivated to come to work while still turning a good profit.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by darklord700

People I know who work for the AB government or the schools all voted for Alison last time. They might be discontent with her or PC right now. But when voting time comes, they'll vote with their wallets and vote PC.

There's no way WR could win the election if they don't at least win 40% of the seats in Edmonton.

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not only public sector employees who do that. I can guarantee you that if one party was going to make my business more efficient and in the end make me more money, I would vote for them. That's just human nature.

With that reasoning I would also assume that the majority of those who work for Alberta Health Services vote PC everytime. They have done quite well (financially) under successive PC governments since the Kleine years.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Rerun

With that reasoning I would also assume that the majority of those who work for Alberta Health Services vote PC everytime. They have done quite well (financially) under successive PC governments since the Kleine years.

I assume the majority of Albertans vote PC every time, not just health employees.

Most people in Alberta have done quite well (financially) under successive PC governments since the Klein years.

That's sort of the issue, isn't it?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well that is a lot of people to compare to one persons salary. I wonder how much a CEO's sick day would cost?

I've often wondered what Starbucks is doing right. I've never seen or dealt with a moody or grumpy employee there and I go for coffee a lot. I don't imagine they get paid terribly well, probably get a few sick days a year but why do they seem to be happier and more effective at work (generally) than someone at Safeway, 7-11 or McDonalds? It seems to me that they've somehow managed to strike a balance of giving employees a reason to be motivated to come to work while still turning a good profit.

Their turnover is a fair bit lower than the industry average. They have some neat perks for their employees and try to really find people who love coffee.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I assume the majority of Albertans vote PC every time, not just health employees.

Most people in Alberta have done quite well (financially) under successive PC governments since the Klein years.

That's sort of the issue, isn't it?

Well since AHS costs have tripled over the last 10 years, I suspect some have done better than others. I know the products my company sells or buys haven't tripled in cost since 2004...

Plus the Alberta taxpayer isn't forced to pay for my company's product.

Thats the issue.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Well since AHS costs have tripled over the last 10 years, I suspect some have done better than others. I know the products my company sells or buys haven't tripled in cost since 2004...

Plus the Alberta taxpayer isn't forced to pay for my company's product.

Thats the issue.

Well...are healthcare costs tripling across Canada? Or is there a significant difference in Alberta's Health Care expenses? Perhaps there is more systemic set of issues driving up Healthcare expenses...

In answering this question you would have to compensate for migration to Alberta as well...since our population is growing relative to most other regions it would be normal for our Health Care costs to be higher as a result.

My point is...the issue of rising Healthcare costs may be largely driven by factors outside of AHS...

But since I don't have data one way or the other I don't know..

[Fozzie_DeBear]

And another point...which other Provincial economy (or Provincial leadership) would you rather have had than Alberta's?

I can't think of another Province that I would change places with...

Of course it can still be better...but we have it very very very good

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I assume the majority of Albertans vote PC every time, not just health employees.

Most people in Alberta have done quite well (financially) under successive PC governments since the Klein years.

That's sort of the issue, isn't it?

Sort of. The other outstanding issue is that public service programs have come fairly cheap for Albertans because they're fueled by resource revenue and not taxes.

Status quo for the short term thinking Albertan is pretty darn good. No PST, lots of opportunity and lots money to be made. So they kept voting PC for 40 years. But as soon as you start thinking long-term, it becomes a different story.

[Flash Walken]

Since i brought up Royalties, no one has responded in kind.

What if, just by collecting the full amount of Royalties owed, Alberta had a budget surplus?

Why all this hand wringing about cuts to services and so on when there are viable revenue streams that are throwing money away.

If you want to be fiscally conservative, shouldn't the first, most prudent measure be to make sure you are collecting all the taxes and royalties owed to you?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Yes

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Since i brought up Royalties, no one has responded in kind.

What if, just by collecting the full amount of Royalties owed, Alberta had a budget surplus?

Why all this hand wringing about cuts to services and so on when there are viable revenue streams that are throwing money away.

If you want to be fiscally conservative, shouldn't the first, most prudent measure be to make sure you are collecting all the taxes and royalties owed to you?

Didn't Ed Stelmach try that? And wasn't it an unmitigated disaster?

Alberta isn't the only place that has oil and gas in the ground. Its not like we have a monopoly on it.


Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you and Alberta has Royalties due to them under the present royalty structure and they aren't collecting them or the oil company's aren't paying them?

[oilyfan]

Stelmach just got caught increasing the royalties at the wrong time, right when the crash happened. There is a lot of data to suggest that Alberta collects a much lower share of resource revenues than other jurisdictions.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Stelmach just got caught increasing the royalties at the wrong time, right when the crash happened. There is a lot of data to suggest that Alberta collects a much lower share of resource revenues than other jurisdictions.

Not quite. Stelmach and the royalties issue did more for BC and Saskatchewan's oil and gas industries than anything their governments ever did.

Comparing Alberta's resources to other jurisdictions needs to take into account the quality of the resources, and the costs it takes to make a barrel here vs. there.

Not all oil resources are created equal, and Alberta has been blessed with a resource that takes a lot more work to get out of the ground than those other jurisdictions. The combination of effort and profit is what makes our industry so great, but so fragile.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Not quite. Stelmach and the royalties issue did more for BC and Saskatchewan's oil and gas industries than anything their governments ever did.

Comparing Alberta's resources to other jurisdictions needs to take into account the quality of the resources, and the costs it takes to make a barrel here vs. there.

Not all oil resources are created equal, and Alberta has been blessed with a resource that takes a lot more work to get out of the ground than those other jurisdictions. The combination of effort and profit is what makes our industry so great, but so fragile.

So what you appear to be saying is that since the Alberta conventional oil is so hard to get out of the ground, we need to subsidize the industry with lower royalty rates? This explains why there were so many billions given to the oil industry in 2009-2011.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Org/pdf...enuesGraph.pdf

[oilyfan]

Most royalties are based on revenues minus costs, except in the pay out phase, so the higher costs are already taken into account.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Not all oil resources are created equal, and Alberta has been blessed with a resource that takes a lot more work to get out of the ground than those other jurisdictions. The combination of effort and profit is what makes our industry so great, but so fragile.

Exactly. It costs more to find the oil and to get it out of the ground and the oil they get isn't as high of a grade as elsewhere. Therefore the risk in losing your investment is higher, therefore royalties are lower and subsidies/incentives, more prevalent

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Exactly. It costs more to find the oil and to get it out of the ground and the oil they get isn't as high of a grade as elsewhere. Therefore the risk in losing your investment is higher, therefore royalties are lower and subsidies/incentives, more prevalent

There's no risk of losing your investment. The infrastructure is already in place, and it is a proven revenue stream. The question is one of profit, and how profit vs. cost was derived. There should be a significant jump in royalties after costs are recouped by the companies involved, but the structure of the agreement makes it such that that threshold will never be reached.

This is an interesting short read on how other jurisdictions handle the resource.
http://desmog.ca/2013/02/28/if-canad...are-we-so-debt

If I remember correctly, when Stelmach was trying to raise the royalty rate, the CEO of Shell arrived to say that his company would welcome a new deal and raise in royalty. This is because he new that even doubling the royalty rate was far cheaper than straightening out the existing deal so that the high mark of 35% royalty to Alberta became a reality.

A friend of mine once summed it up like this. A company is not going to abandon an enterprise because now they are making only 3 billion a year as opposed to 4 billion. That our government is such a pushover on this issue, for so long, reeks of either incompetence or corruption.